Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.44 seconds)
Veer Singh vs Dy. Registrar Coop. Soc. Meerut And ... on 30 September, 2013 cites

Subhash Chandra Sharma vs Managing Director, U.P. Co-Op. Spg. ... on 7 September, 1999

"It is well settled that when the statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner that thing has to be done in that very manner. We are of the considered opinion that any punishment awarded on the basis of an enquiry not conducted in accordance with the enquiry rules meant for that very purposes is unsustainable in the eye of law. We are further of the view that the procedure prescribed under the inquiry rules for imposing major penalty is mandatory in nature and unless those procedures are followed, any out come inferred thereon will be of no avail unless the charges are so glaring and unrefutable which does not require any proof. The view taken by us find support from the judgement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. & another Vs. T.P.Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director & another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541."
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 141 - Full Document

State Of U.P. & vs T.P. Lal Srivastava on 20 September, 1996

"It is well settled that when the statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner that thing has to be done in that very manner. We are of the considered opinion that any punishment awarded on the basis of an enquiry not conducted in accordance with the enquiry rules meant for that very purposes is unsustainable in the eye of law. We are further of the view that the procedure prescribed under the inquiry rules for imposing major penalty is mandatory in nature and unless those procedures are followed, any out come inferred thereon will be of no avail unless the charges are so glaring and unrefutable which does not require any proof. The view taken by us find support from the judgement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. & another Vs. T.P.Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director & another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 80 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr vs Sri C.S. Sharma on 1 May, 1967

In State of U.P. v. C. S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158, the Supreme Court held that omission to give opportunity to the officer to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the proceedings. The Court also held that in the enquiry witnesses have to be examined in support of the allegations, and opportunity has to be given to the delinquent to cross-examine these witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 108 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Salahuddin Ansari vs Mohammad Ali & Ors on 23 February, 2012

17. The question as to whether non holding of oral inquiry can vitiate the entire proceeding or not has also been considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a member) in the case of Salahuddin Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ESC 1667 and the Court has clearly held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - S Pandey - Full Document
1   2 Next